Lotus's braking attitude compensator is now illegal

[IchII3D]

Did the FIA actually approve it though? I always assumed Lotus where winging it a little in hopes it would get through, I didn't think they banned it as such but decided it doesn't fit within the regulations.

[QLDriver]

Isn't consulting with Charlie Whiting is something akin to visiting a lawyer? He'll offer an opinion as to the legality of a system, but it's not binding, and if evidence comes along that it's not legal, then so be it.

[Shrieker]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say I reckon RB has been using this device or similar for 2 years in conjunction with flexi-wings.

I can remember McLaren being amazed that RB could continue to be so low to the ground on qualifying fuel load and race load. This lead to all those rumours of slow leak to suspension gases etc etc.

Perhaps this banning is a eureka moment in understanding what RB have been up to?

Good call Shakeman, this is also what I've been suspecting and made vocal earlier in the thread. It all makes sense, very consistent with having flexing fw and/or other flexing bodywork. And as I stated in my earlier post (below) Lotus (Genii) may very well have gotten the hint from them.

With all the rumour about RB having ride height control back in 2010, i wonder whether RB had this sort of system all along from the beginning of 2010 and others (namely Mclaren and Ferrari) were napping all this time. Maybe LRGP just got the hint from them (RB)? It could explain why Mclaren or Ferrari were always just shy of the bulls even when their cars were at their best. Such a system would go so well when coupled with a flexing nose/fw/floor too. And it is a well known fact RB were (still are ?) the best when it comes to flexing parts.

[strad]

Thats strange....coz its said that Lotus developed this system only after confirming with FIA with its legality. FIA can't ban it.

They have done similar things many times...Hell McLaren got an ok for the second brake pedal and others have gotten ideas approved only to have that approval pulled after more thought and discussion.
I don't think they ever just flat say.."ok that is legal"...they give them a provisional ok and they let them run with something until they get a complaint.

[Shakeman]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say I reckon RB has been using this device or similar for 2 years in conjunction with flexi-wings.

I can remember McLaren being amazed that RB could continue to be so low to the ground on qualifying fuel load and race load. This lead to all those rumours of slow leak to suspension gases etc etc.

Perhaps this banning is a eureka moment in understanding what RB have been up to?

Good call Shakeman, this is also what I've been suspecting and made vocal earlier in the thread. It all makes sense, very consistent with having flexing fw and/or other flexing bodywork. And as I stated in my earlier post (below) Lotus (Genii) may very well have gotten the hint from them.

With all the rumour about RB having ride height control back in 2010, i wonder whether RB had this sort of system all along from the beginning of 2010 and others (namely Mclaren and Ferrari) were napping all this time. Maybe LRGP just got the hint from them (RB)? It could explain why Mclaren or Ferrari were always just shy of the bulls even when their cars were at their best. Such a system would go so well when coupled with a flexing nose/fw/floor too. And it is a well known fact RB were (still are ?) the best when it comes to flexing parts.

Sorry, I missed your post but as you can see agree with you.

And what happens if this device fails? Maybe you get the type of accident when Vettel speared Button at Spa. Remember the onboard footage of Vettel's RB become unstable and front flex and throwing him into Button's side pod.

Maybe RRH is the thing that stops the front wing from resonating like Ferrari's did last season.

[Crucial_Xtreme]

Matteo Bonciani, the FIA's head of F1 communications:

-confirmed to Reuters that technical head Charlie Whiting had written to all the teams on Friday clarifying the situation.


-said the FIA had received a number of technical enquiries from teams about the legality of systems that could alter the configuration of a car's suspension in response to changes in brake torque.


-said systems shown to the FIA for approval relied on changes to the length of a suspension member and appeared to have a primary, if not sole, purpose of affecting the aerodynamic performance of the car.


-Some systems designed to allow additional movement of the brake caliper for aerodynamic purposes were also illegal.


-The governing body ruled that, in its opinion, the systems contravened article 3.15 and possibly articles 10.2.1 and 10.2.3. The latter article states that "no adjustment may be made to the suspension system while the car is in motion."


It seems that multiple teams submitted their solutions to the FIA. It also seems it was Reg 10.2.3 that really makes the solution illegal. I posted because this is the first "Official" word of any kind I've seen from the FIA.

Link--> http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/01/2 ... BT20120121

[xpensive]

In retrospect, with an eye on 10.2.3, the big mystery is how the system was given the nod in the first place?

I think the FIA should seriously review their technical routines and methods for handling inquiries such as these.

[Ferraripilot]

Isn't consulting with Charlie Whiting is something akin to visiting a lawyer? He'll offer an opinion as to the legality of a system, but it's not binding, and if evidence comes along that it's not legal, then so be it.

If Charlie Whiting were not associated with the FiA, let along the head of the department then yes your assumption is correct. But because Charlie in essence is in charge of giving the final say then his word is binding to the rules as he works for the company and is the department head of the department who enforces the rules. It's like a supreme court judge giving a ruling and then retracting the decision.

[Ferraripilot]

In retrospect, with an eye on 10.2.3, the big mystery is how the system was given the nod in the first place?

I think the FIA should seriously review their technical routines and methods for handling inquiries such as these.

Charlie is the head interpreter of the rules. He said it was ok thus making the rule irrelevant, unless of course someone made a stink about it, and then it goes out of Charlie's hands to a higher level of court appeal which I am sure Lotus will engage due to Charlie's earlier ruling approx 1 year prior.

[Holm86]

"Article 3.15 of the 2012 technical regulations, published this month, states that "any car system, device or procedure which uses driver movement as a means of altering the aerodynamic characteristics of the car is prohibited."

Then the brakes should be illegal?? They make the cars nose dive changing aerodynamics.

Holding the nose at stabil level under braking dosnt change any aero???

[Mr Alcatraz]

In retrospect, with an eye on 10.2.3, the big mystery is how the system was given the nod in the first place?

I think the FIA should seriously review their technical routines and methods for handling inquiries such as these.

Charlie is the head interpreter of the rules. He said it was ok thus making the rule irrelevant, unless of course someone made a stink about it, and then it goes out of Charlie's hands to a higher level of court appeal which I am sure Lotus will engage due to Charlie's earlier ruling approx 1 year prior.

Dude the system is toast. I'm not sure what you mean by "Lotus will engage"
Are you saying that they will appeal it, or conform to the clarification?

[hardingfv32]

Once the FiA in essence voided the law some time ago in agreeing to the technology, Lotus and other teams using this tech could undoubtedly argue with success that the FiA was in breach of their amended verbal agreement which I am sure Lotus has documented. In the US, I would call almost this a 'bad faith' case.

In the US, this would be successful but I haven't any idea regarding how these international venues might govern things. I'm guessing it's their way or the highway on most occasions though.

This is considered a sporting event under the law. As such, the sanctioning body has ultimate authority.

On a practical point, how is a judge or jury with no motor racing background going to make a correct judgement when we on the forum are unable to?

Brian

[beelsebob]

"Article 3.15 of the 2012 technical regulations, published this month, states that "any car system, device or procedure which uses driver movement as a means of altering the aerodynamic characteristics of the car is prohibited."

Then the brakes should be illegal?? They make the cars nose dive changing aerodynamics.

Holding the nose at stabil level under braking dosnt change any aero???

No – reread what the FIA said – had the <em>primary if not sole</em> purpose of altering the cars aerodynamics. Breaks certainly have a different primary purpose than altering the aero of the car.

[hardingfv32]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say I reckon RB has been using this device or similar for 2 years in conjunction with flexi-wings.

I can remember McLaren being amazed that RB could continue to be so low to the ground on qualifying fuel load and race load. This lead to all those rumours of slow leak to suspension gases etc etc.

Perhaps this banning is a eureka moment in understanding what RB have been up to?

Good call Shakeman, this is also what I've been suspecting and made vocal earlier in the thread. It all makes sense, very consistent with having flexing fw and/or other flexing bodywork. And as I stated in my earlier post (below) Lotus (Genii) may very well have gotten the hint from them.

Bad Call! The high flex splitter system was RB's secret to running low ground clearance.

Brian

[hardingfv32]

Then the brakes should be illegal?? They make the cars nose dive changing aerodynamics.

Holding the nose at stabil level under braking dosnt change any aero???

You must not actually race with a major sanctioning body. You are not allowed to use 'contorted' interpretations of the rules.

Nose dive under braking is a normal phenomena.

Brian